Huh? I made no such supposition. I merely refuted your analogy that God is like a parent who gets an immunization for his/her child. The difference is that parents are not omnipotent, whereas God ostensibly is. Were God not omnipotent, then yes, He might have to choose the lesser of 2 evils from time to time, as parents do. But since He is omnipotent, your analogy does not hold.
When did I call it a “benefit”? You are the one who made the analogy. I assumed you were making the point that parents have to hurt their child momentarily to protect the child from possible sickness later. What does reproducing have to do with it?
Besides, were I omnipotent, I could conceive the child AND give it a painless shot. For that matter, I could just end disease and render the shot unneccesary. So again, your analogy doesn’t hold.
But let me answer you question anyway. When parents conceive a child, they either don’t consider the consequences of their actions, or they decide that the benefits outweigh the evils. I think most parents figure that the potential for happiness of their child outweighs the risk of suffering. That’s the greater good. If they were omnipotent, they would never have to make such a choice. Now, would you care to answer my question?
**
What is the greater good that necessitates birth defects, disease, earthquakes, hurricanes, mental illness, etc.?
**
You’re way off track; I made no such assertion. A couple is free to choose not to bring a child into a world that they consider evil. But again, if they were omnipotent, they would not have to make such a choice; they could simply make the world not evil.
G-d knows evil exists. He created it. The problem with the J.C. G-d’s definition is, it is completely contradictory. You’re right. That G-d cannot possibly exist. The Christian explanation of evil explains that someone rebelled against G-d and became evil. It indicates that G-d is not as strong or stronger of a force than evil or he would have known and stopped him.
In your world where G-d doesn’t exist, there’s still evil. How do you explain the evil? In a world where G-d exists, why is he supposed to rescue us? We have a finite amount of years to achieve all we can(collectively). Why do you want someone else to “fix it” or help you live it? If he’s wise enough to let you do it on your own, why does that mean he doesn’t exist?
With no contrast, how could we know what happy and safe feels like. Wait, he could just pre-program us to feel happy and safe. Over-population, poverty. He could just solve that problem for us. Well then we wouldn’t have to lift a finger to help anyone else. We would be selfish. No wait, he could take that away. Make us unselfish. People would still die of old age. That’s sad. No, he could take that away. Make us live forever. The emotions and all the good things we learn to feel, he could have just programmed in too. Who needs experiences when he could just hard-wire them in? Achievement, pride, increasing our intellect. He could just make us think we should feel a sense of accomplishment. G-d really screwed up when he decided to let us do our own work to become all that we can be? Are you sure that’s what you would want, assuming G-d’s existence?
From your description, it sounds much like the way some have described Heaven would be like. If you believe in that sort of thing, have you asked yourself is this what you want?
Yes. I would want that. But not without this life, this experience first. Grief and pain didn’t skip me, but what a great experience overall! Although I’m hoping we won’t have some of the grief and pain in the next life, I don’t think that means we can’t be challenged or excited. I don’t believe the “traditional” versions of heaven, well mostly because religion made it up. I do believe we continue, but I’m NOT playing a harp.
Humans are just irrational enough that we won’t learn from something unless it affects us in an important way, sometimes anyway. I suppose, if we’re talking about the J.C. God that he could simply zap the knowledge into our brain and just let us run amok in a perfect world, but then what’s the point? Why would anyone create something that idolized it’s creator and did little to nothing else? Sometimes some things must be learned by experience? I dunno, I’ll have to think about it IWLN
Grah, I’m an incompetent. I’ll have to think about what blowero said, and I agree with IWLN’s last bits.
I’m not Diogenes, but a simple example is that you would assume that a proposition “B” is true. If “B” is true, then “~(~B)” is also true. A proved negative.
It is able to be discerned. But has chosen not to be in a way that would provide empiricle evidence. Because it has not proven to be discernable, does not mean that it can’t be.
There is no reason to posit that this being is supposed to elude us or has not revealed itself in a certain way, that it doesn’t have the power.
If we are receiving something from a unexplainable “source”, then that something is not completely undiscernable.
I don’t think you can “prove a not”.
You’re coming up with a definition and the being doesn’t exist because the definition doesn’t work? You lost me there. You would first have to prove you contingent property of immateriality is correct, which isn’t possible to do.
And on that note, I’m going to say G-d has been proven to me and others, but there is no method to pass that proof on, or any way to completely “discern” if it is actual proof or delusion. God can’t be proven. You can make up different definitions, which also can’t be proven and then try and prove the unproven definitions true. You can’t prove them false with any real accuracy, since the only real fact you have is man does not have irrefutable proof of G-d.
Wrong. So, you’re saying that the rules of math require a physical universe to exist? “Yes,” you say. But what kind of physical universe? What about an empty void, devoid of matter? “Yes, that would work,” perhaps you say. OK, whatabout the raw singularity of the Bing Bang, pre-bang–do the laws exist within that, but could not exist without it? If so, then they can exist without any universe at all, since the raw singularity had no physical, spatial, or temporal properties whatsoever, according to conventional theory.
Very incorrect. So, you say we understand what pi is (the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter) because we observe the value in nature? So, we might turn out to be wrong one day and discover that pi was really exactly 3.15? The conclusion is clearly ludicrous.
Unintelligible.
Indecipherable.
That would be true, according to your definition. But number is like the sun; the universe is like a pond reflecting the sunlight. You are trying to argue that, without the pond, the sun does not exist. I am saying that the light shines whether reflected or not.
Let’s rewind here and consider that I’m addressing a very specific set of properties submitted by Aldebaran.
I was basically given properties of “God cannot be detected by humans… God is immaterial…”. Stating that something is immaterial is stating that otherness does not exist with regards to this being, that there is no ability for it to be discerned because there is no reference point. The entire point of material is that there is such a thing as otherness and reference-ability.
Material, is synonymous with the ability to be discerned, interacted with… otherness, referenced, difference. Understand?
So, when someone states that something is not material, it’s effectively stating that it cannot be referenced, or is not reference-able.
I was given the properties of existence and immateriality. This translates to “exists without otherness”, which doesn’t make sense. To give the benefit of doubt though, I hypothesized the only way that I know how to hypothesize the existence of a thing without reference-ability (cannot be detected by humans or interacted with by any form of differentiation) – and that was to suppose that something comes from nothing at all. Instead of simply stopping the argument earlier, I took it an additional step, saying, “Ok, it cannot be detected by humans, but it exists… so how does our hypothesis of it’s possible existence emerge, if not from nothing at all?”. In stating this, I’m assuming that God must necessarily exist still… I’m taking the conditions at face value.
Do you understand how it is already a contradiction to have a hypothesis in the human meme pool about the existence of a being that is undetectable through human means?
Do you understand why I would have to hypothesize that something comes from nothing at all in order to move an additional step beyond this first contradiction while still assuming that this being exists - since this being was basically defined as “immaterial, exists”.
What that statement is effectively saying (immaterial exists) is that singularities exist and interact without the property of referenceability. That’s an astonishing claim to make, but I’m taking it at face value.
I’m trying to understand how you came to all of the premises, assumptions and hypothesis from the definition that Aldebaran gave? It doesn’t seem to match. Also not discernable is different from incomprehensible. Anyway, I won’t butt in anymore. Go for it. Except…your statement below. Can you tell me how a hypothesis that something comes from nothing helps. This one I don’t understand. There is no such thing as nothing. It in itself is an impossibility. There never has been “nothingness” and there never will be.
I don’t want God to “fix it”, of course (since I don’t believe that God exists), but would you agree that since God allows evil to exist (and since God created the universe, he must have created the evil as well), then He cannot be all-benevolent? IOW, if He makes some evil, then we cannot describe him as ALL good.
But since you brought it up, I understand your point about God not helping us and letting us do things on our own (kind of a God ‘prime-directive’, I guess), but wouldn’t you at least expect Him not to go out of His way to hurt us? As an analogy, would you beat your puppy just so he would know how good it feels when you stop beating him?
Like I said, the proof only works for the J.C. God with the 3 characteristics I mentioned. It doesn’t prove other gods who are not omnibenevolent might exist.
I’ve never had a bad orgasm, so how do I know an orgasm feels good with nothing to compare it to? Answer: I just do.
[Sorry, that was the first example that popped into my head.:o]
Hmmm…I’m going to briefly switch sides here and say that it’s true in this universe, but who is to say that if other universe(s) exist, that they might have completely different rules than ours.
Yah. Just when I thought it was safe to go back into the water…
I did agree that G-d created evil. It’s part of our contrast and balance. I would still describe him as good, but only because I don’t think I perceive the bad quite like some people do. Good and bad are both the gift of experience. Honestly, I don’t talk like that in real life, either.
I am extremely compassionate, but I do think what we consider awful is still just our own lack of perspective. Evolution brought us to where we are now and if G-d didn’t exist, things were be pretty much the same. I think the other G-d prime directive is not interfering with what we’re doing right now. It doesn’t seem that harsh to me. What percentage is 80 years to forever? If you give him credit for the bad, he get’s it for the good too.
I agree. You’re right. I never thought G-d was Christian anyway or at least I didn’t want him to be.
Ouch. Do you suppose one day we can forget I used orgasm in an argument about trying to explain G-d? Okay, I’ll bite anyway. Although I have no way of knowing if my “truth” is someone else’s; even an orgasm has a range, a degree or variation. I know what a “GREAT” one is because I have had “okay” ones. Admittedly if I only had okay, I wouldn’t know I was missing anything, but having a variety of experiences gave me the awareness I needed to strive for uh…the best. :o
I don’t understand your example. What does “~” mean? (“Not”?)
But let’s assume that it’s a (seemingly) valid logical proof.
I hereby posit that the reason you and possibly many others mistakenly think it’s an example of something that can be disproved is that little green men from Mars are using their mind-control ray on you.
My sincere apologies. I began with Diogenes’ conditions first and then began mixing Diogenes’ conditions with Aldebaran’s later on because… I believe it’s called confusion. The line that we’re on is related to my responses regarding Diogenes’ conditions moreso than Aldebaran’s conditions. I already addressed Aldebaran’s conditions with regards to the persons perception who is deciding the claim for themselves. Diogenses’ conditions,
Basically, I was taking the conditions of an “absolute eternal creator that is the only absolute eternal creator” (aka Aldebaran’s conditions) and melding it with Diogenes’ conditions as well, when I was responding to you. It strikes me that you were melding the two seperate arguments in response to me, so as a result, my mind for whatever reason decided to meld them as well instead of differentiating this aspect of what was occurring. You are correct in stating that Aldebaran’s condition doesn’t explicate the “immateriality” aspect of Diogenes’ conditions.
Now, you and I both agree that something coming from absolute nothingness is not sensical. My point however, was that when you have an “immaterial one and only creator of everything that cannot be detected by humans” and you also state that this immaterial being exists… then you don’t have any options left except for nothingness if you’re going to continue to humor that such a being does actually exist in these conditions.
Exists, material, can be detected by humans
Exists, immaterial, cannot be detected by humans
So, how do we hypothesize a being that exists but cannot be detected by humans, if we are still to assume that this being exists?
The only option left is that the hypothesis (because remember this is the ONLY creator) itself comes from something that does not exist. When this is stated, one can still allow for the existence of this being (at least tenatively) and not contradict the fact that we are able to hypothesize about it. But, on closer analysis, the problem then emerges that if something is coming from nothing at all, outside of this beings defined conditions, then this being cannot control the very part of the definition that defines it. This causes numerous problems… one, it contradicts the “eternal” part of the definition, two it makes the immateriality aspect of the definition contingent.
Really? Not that harsh? Babies born with horrible deformities; earthquakes killing tens of thousands at a time; millions suffering and dying from AIDs and other diseases? Be honest - you can’t blame any of those things on man’s actions; you can’t say we brought it on ourselves. And you can’t say “that’s just the cards we were dealt” because God dealt the cards. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to be a pessimist; I think life is a glorious adventure. But c’mon - you can’t honestly say it “doesn’t seem that harsh.”
Well I don’t give him credit for either. YMMV.
Oh, geez - sorry about that. You’re probably not gonna believe me, but I forgot that you had used that as an example before. It truly was off the top of my head. I swear.
Even so, the range is good, better, better still… There is no “bad” with which to compare, yet we still recognize the good.
And actually, that’s the part of Christianity that kind of chaps my hide (no, not orgasms;)) - it’s actually a central tenet of the religion that life was supposed to be that way, i.e. only good, and that we now have to pay the price because the first 2 people screwed up. If you believe the story of Adam and Eve, we could ask your question regarding them: Before they tasted the apple, how did they know they were in paradise, with nothing to compare it to? According to the story, at first they knew good but not evil. But you’re saying that’s impossible.
From what you’ve written before, IWLN, I’m guessing that you personally don’t put a lot of stock in the Adam & Eve story, but for the J.C. God at least, I think the Bible flat-out contradicts the idea that humans can’t know good without the existence of evil.
Why should the word “Creator” refer to “anthropomorphic”?
“Creator” is merely a word humans use to describe the non-created that has no beginning and no end. Therefore also named “uncreated”.
Uncreated = no beginning and no end = no entity since that implies creation. In my opinion this also excludes “existence” in our limited understanding of what that can be, since every existence implies that it has to be created.
Salaam. A
